Coronavirus - worldwide breaking news, discussion, stats, updates and more
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
cupid_stunt
Merry fecking Christmas.
I interpret that as humans in Africa had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds.
2hats
Dust.
Coronaviridae are zoonotic. Like the papers cited, the literature differentiates human/avian/feline/chiroptine/etc coronaviruses and their varying effects across species.
I highlighted the salient words.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
Would that not be sufficiently-well conveyed if you left 'in humans' out of the sentence?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Unfortunately I suspect this take will age badly in any case. 
I suspect the reason why it hasn't hit as hard is due to lack of travel links and less population density (in Namibia where my mum grew up, it is larger than the uk yet only has around 2 million people). There's evidence that there's a lack of testing going on in some places too. I'm also guessing that in many parts of Africa, people are spending more time outdoors too which isn't ideal for the virus .
Some studies suggest that most people with covid don't actually spread it to large numbers of people if at all, so it actually takes large numbers of people arriving in a destination to cause a big outbreak, and if somewhere gets few visitors there might be one or two people arriving with COVID-19 and recovering without causing a huge issue.
I suspect the reason why it hasn't hit as hard is due to lack of travel links and less population density (in Namibia where my mum grew up, it is larger than the uk yet only has around 2 million people). There's evidence that there's a lack of testing going on in some places too. I'm also guessing that in many parts of Africa, people are spending more time outdoors too which isn't ideal for the virus .
Some studies suggest that most people with covid don't actually spread it to large numbers of people if at all, so it actually takes large numbers of people arriving in a destination to cause a big outbreak, and if somewhere gets few visitors there might be one or two people arriving with COVID-19 and recovering without causing a huge issue.
Thora
Differently Ethical
Coronaviruses affect other animals as well as humans?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Exactly
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
Although there are a lot of reports from people who are self reporting ongoing symptoms many months after the acute stage, who also report that they were very fit indeed prior to infection.
There are several Facebook pages I’m a member of where “long haulers” - as they call themselves - discuss their experience, and many of them say that they were previously exercising regularly, from weekly yoga up to marathon level fitness and all points between.
There is a lot of discussion and speculation about long haul symptoms, and of course this is a self-selecting sample and they’re all self reporting, but there does seem to be something peculiar and worrying going on, especially amongst people who weren't so unwell during the acute stage as to need medical intervention. There does seem to be a correlation between fitness and long-term ongoing chronic inflammation issues following Covid-19.
Long-Haulers Are Redefining COVID-19
Without understanding the lingering illness that some patients experience, we can’t understand the pandemic.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Its really unexceptional to see 'in humans' used in this context.
Searches for terms such as "coronaviruses in humans" yields plenty of results, for good reasons.
There are a bunch of reasons for this. One of them is that viruses we associate with respiratory diseases in humans may have different prominent symptoms and different main mode of transmission in animal hosts. eg animals getting the shits as the main feature and transmission via the faecal oral route.
Last edited:
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
I take your point Mation, but I read it exactly as elbows has described.
Academic language is different to every day language, and can seem clumsy or overly specific.
Like papers that talk about “mortality and morbidity”. And the attention that was given to the word “outcome” earlier, which means a specific thing in medical terms, which is different to how it is used in lay terms.
But yes, that article could have - or maybe should have - phrased it differently; and the question speaks to deep and problematic issues.
Academic language is different to every day language, and can seem clumsy or overly specific.
Like papers that talk about “mortality and morbidity”. And the attention that was given to the word “outcome” earlier, which means a specific thing in medical terms, which is different to how it is used in lay terms.
But yes, that article could have - or maybe should have - phrased it differently; and the question speaks to deep and problematic issues.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
I'm familiar with academic language having published original research papers in high impact neuroscience and psychophysics journals, and having worked in science communication for a decade.
This really wasn't meant to be a trap, and it's actually getting pretty upsetting now. The sentence basically says on the one hand Africans and on the other hand humans. It's not that I don't understand how you read it, but there is a bias in the way it was phrased that you (and others) obviously can't see.
Please don't make it worse by assuming that I'm the one who doesn't understand. It's a bias you missed. Examine it. Or don't, but don't patronise me with it.
(Not just you.)
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
I’d forgotten that you have scientific and academic experience and I apologise for that, and also for the resulting patronising tone in my post.
I did say that I take your point and I understand the issue. I fully agree that the language in the article is problematic. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.
I gave it the benefit of the doubt because (I thought) I had interpreted it entirely and only in the context of academic language. However in light of the ongoing discussion I am now examining my own position and thought processes, and I’m grateful to you for pursuing and clarifying the issue.
I did say that I take your point and I understand the issue. I fully agree that the language in the article is problematic. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.
I gave it the benefit of the doubt because (I thought) I had interpreted it entirely and only in the context of academic language. However in light of the ongoing discussion I am now examining my own position and thought processes, and I’m grateful to you for pursuing and clarifying the issue.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
Thank you. And yes, you did say you took my point, so that part of my reply was unfair to you. I mentally amalgamated everyone's responses. Apologies.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
Nonsense. It's never acceptable. I certainly never mentioned the word humans in my papers.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I have experienced mental anguish from situations where thinly disguised bias was completely invisible to some people whose refusal to see it caused further despair.
I dont understand how I could possibly see the sentence in question as an example though.
That sentence is in no way differentiating Africans from humans. They are talking about coronaviruses that are perceived to cause no more than colds in humans, including all the humans of Africa. There is no concept of one hand, other hand in that part of the sentence.
The difference that is mentioned in that sentence is the idea that Africans may have had more exposure to such coronaviruses than people in other parts of the world. They experience them as colds, like all humans.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
It is clear that you can't see it, yes. And since you know what it feels like to see a bias that's invisible to others, why would you not just leave it at, ok I don't see it but maybe I'll think about it? (Not as a post to me, but as a thought to yourself.)
We've already established that the point you think I haven't understood could be conveyed perfectly well without using the added 'in humans' or, imo, losing any of its style. I hope we've also established that this isn't about the general use of the term in papers about humans.
The fact that you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
elbows
Well-Known Member
I spent time considering the sentence and what it actually said and already gave my thoughts on that. And now I feel badly hurt, a feeling which is not going to improve the quality of my output. Now I will attempt to get over it without feeling the need to spew many defensive words.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
Wow.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
The honest answer is that I'd probably just have found it funny as a sentence that contrasts humans with Europeans (and would still want to see it re-written).
It's probably the combination of me being an English teacher who is very sensitive to how racial stuff is phrased and also having a science background.
If it had occurred to me that the phrasing wouldn't be obviously read the same way I did, I probably wouldn't have posted it on this particular thread.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Here is the paper that that bit of the article comes from:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
And the part in question:
Wow at me all you like Mation, you made a mistake and I'm not going to learn much from it.
Why is There Low Morbidity and Mortality of COVID-19 in Africa? - PMC
Three months since the detection of the first COVID-19 case in Africa, almost all countries of the continent continued to report lower morbidity and mortality than the global trend, including Europe and North America. We reviewed the merits of ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
And the part in question:
Wow at me all you like Mation, you made a mistake and I'm not going to learn much from it.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
The paper isn't written in the same way as the article, and doesn't seem biased, you're right. I wasn't talking about the paper, though. There is a bias in how the article was phrased. And I also have a bias in seeing it, both personally and professionally.Here is the paper that that bit of the article comes from:
Why is There Low Morbidity and Mortality of COVID-19 in Africa? - PMC
Three months since the detection of the first COVID-19 case in Africa, almost all countries of the continent continued to report lower morbidity and mortality than the global trend, including Europe and North America. We reviewed the merits of ...
And the part in question:
Wow at me all you like Mation, you made a mistake and I'm not going to learn much from it.
SheilaNaGig
Break requested
elbows
Well-Known Member
Thanks for explaining. I hope you dont mind if we zoom in further to the area of confusion as I think we are close to some sort of resolution. Something you said in response to two sheds test of converting the sentence to mention Europeans instead of Africans might be the key:
Its the 'contrasts' bit. I dont see which part of the contentious sentence in question actually involves making that sort of contrast at all. I know absolutely nothing about how to teach English. What sort of sentence structures can be used to contrast things? Whatever they are, I have struggled to find them in the sentence in question, and so we have found ourselves having this conversation today. I'm sorry it didnt go very well
elbows
Well-Known Member
It was honest and all I could manage at the time. I thought it might be better to express pain and anguish that I felt directly, rather than just have it sponsor all manner of other crap spilling out of my gob. You are of course entitled to your opinion that it is not a good look, but it is mine and genuine and I will own it.
